In Graham v. Progressive Direct Insurance Company, the insureds had filed a motion for reconsideration after the court adopted the recommendation of a special master to dismiss their claims for underinsured motorists benefits, bad faith, and loss of consortium.
The court noted that “reconsideration of a prior order is only warranted if the moving party demonstrates: (1) an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence which was not available when the court issued its order; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent a manifest injustice.”
The insureds in this case did not assert that there had been any changes in the controlling law or that there was a clear error of law or fact. They only claimed that new evidence of depositions should persuade the court to reconsider the ruling that the insureds were not entitled to the discovery of certain claims information.
The court rejected the insureds’ argument, determining that the evidence the insureds relied upon was incomplete. It therefore denied the insureds’ motion for reconsideration.
Date of Decision: August 6, 2010
Graham v. Progressive Direct Ins. Co., Civil Action No. 09-969, United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79402 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 6, 2010) (Fischer, J.)